Are those who defend President Obama's every single move, sincere?

[darkangel218]

How can someone not have issues with the NSAs snooping program? Or unlimited detention without charge, which Potus signed for another year?
Or non demilitarizing our country, but instead pump more trillions into overseas bases?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not getting it.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Paid shills in the Philippines

[carolinayellowdog]

17. that country has a higher activity level here than any other outside North America

I wondered why; your post offers an explanation

[FreakinDJ]

34. Those of us that operate Servers/Websites understand how prevelent it really is

I've even corresponded with several of them to find out how much they are being paid.

They are pretty nice folks really, but only making slave wages. Once you get to the fucker holding the purse strings its an entirely different matter

[arely staircase]

22. witch hunt, disruptive nonsense, utter lack of creativity

A Skinner said:

1. This whole who-is-the-paid-shill witch hunt is disruptive nonsense.

It betrays an utter lack of creativity on the part of the people making the accusation. They are so convinced that they are right that they cannot imagine someone else might hold a different point of view in good faith. Either that or they are incapable of advocating for their own point of view on the merits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=2716

[Mojorabbit]

54. As I posted many times, one of our members congratulated another

for posting a meme that really "sells". So I will keep an open mind about it. I can't imagine what kind a life someone much have to do that kind of work. Lowest of the low.

[madinmaryland]

30. Automated result for the alert on this post...

At Sun Aug 18, 2013, 12:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Paid shills in the Philippines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3482114

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling supporters of the President "paid shills" is the definintion of disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 18, 2013, 12:48 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The OP doesn't concern "supporters", but those who "defend...every single move."

I'm not sure what that has to do with the Philippines, but I think it's silly to pretend that there couldn't ever be a professional poster on DU (altho it's equally silly to presume that anyone you disagree with is the hired help.)
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I ain't got time for paid shills!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sorry, but the poster's explanation is really the only one that makes sense. DU has become the internet's premier site for NSA apologia.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: I think it has a hint of racism too, actually. As does carolinayellowdog's reply to this one.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

-----

[FreakinDJ]

33. BWAaaaaahahaha

As if you posted any thing of substance

[carolinayellowdog]

49. a fraudulent alert on more than one level

Here is the website info that I had seen and wondered about; top five countries for DU traffic, rankings given:

1,329 United States
4,285 Canada
4,953 Philippines
6,891 Norway
7,040 United Kingdom

There is nothing racist about noticing that the Philippines has a higher DU site ranking than any other country outside North America. As low as the NSA defenders have sunk, I never imagined than anti-Filipino racism would be pulled out as an accusation. And there is no one saying all supporters of the president are paid shills.

[deurbano]

57. That's interesting. Why do you think Norway is in the top five?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM, SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM...

[FreakinDJ]

59. To all the Mental midgets - Fuck your Anti-Filipino Racism Slurr

I'm married to a Filipina

wanna see pictures of my wedding

[backscatter712]

130. Even authoritarian ratfucking gets outsourced.

Amazing how that works.

Methinks Skinner & co. need to start logging IPs - I'll bet he could track down quite a few sockpuppets/personas.

[Logical]

71. I bet I know who alerted this! n-t

[pscot]

2. Kill lists and drone strikes

What kind of moral and ethical contortions are required to justify those?

[Phlem]

89. kill list with no legal recourse for anyone on it.

Yep, that's what a liberal would do.

Spot on pscot.

-p

[Igel]

3. Yes. He's theirs.

They identify with him so strongly that to disrespect him is to disrespect them or their group, however they define it.

It's the same kind of thinking that caused my neighbor as a kid to defend her innocent little darling son. Even when he shot a guy in her front yard when a drug deal (he was dealing) went bad, when the police found ammo in his bedroom along with stolen goods from numerous break-ins in the area, she insisted he was absolutely innocent.

The courts disagreed and sent him away for a long, long time, but she insisted it was a frame-up because her darling would never, ever, do anything bad.


In this case, though, while not a knee-jerk supporter of pretty much anybody, I'm not up in arms over the NSA mess. Snowden was a weasel. Most people want to be outraged and so misconstrue what's said and take words out of context to prove what they always knew or wanted to believe.

[grasswire]

4. hey, a facet of freepers were the same way about George W.

They even had a gaggle of blue-haired women who would pray for him every day and swoon over every photo, every quote. And they would sink fangs into anyone who interrupted the swooning.

A cult of personality is a form of brainwashing.

[backscatter712]

131. Yep. Exactly.

[PSPS]

5. It's called a personality cult

Some people feel the need to deify leaders in their society. I don't get it either, but it's apparently quite common -- Bush has his, Jim Jones, Kim Jong Un, etc. It's certainly not unusual, but it does say something about the person's state of mind.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. You don't know that posters who defend Obama are with him on every move he makes.

For instance, in one pickup game I saw, I seriously thought he should have driven to the hoop instead of settling for a jump shot.

[Whisp]

23. This is true. It would be like throwing chum to sharks, wouldn't it?

Can you imagine the pile ons?

But funny you should post that pic because that shows one crit I have of the President as well... he has awful taste in belts. There, we can be excused.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

25. That is right! Another one: when he rides a bike he reminds me of Eurkel.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. No. Obviously so.

[tapermaker]

8. I support pres.obama because

I find him trustworthy.He makes decisions that we can disagree with, but I would rather have him making the decision than anyone else at this time.I truly feel that having any republican as president would be vastly more dangerous for our country.They have shown that they can`t govern.Decisions that are made by them prove disastrous.If this president was allowed to seek and implement policy as he saw fit ,you know , like republicans usually get to do,instead of disaster we would all be light years better off than we are.

[ZombieHorde]

26. That is a very fair explanation, in my opinion. nt

[calimary]

90. Welcome to DU, tapermaker!

Glad you're here. Glad you posted this. It echoes my feelings exactly!!! Look, President Obama isn't perfect. I think that's WELL-ESTABLISHED by now, from any corner of the observing world. And he's shackled and hamstrung by enemies and idiots whose only reason for being is to keep him from carrying out his ideas (ideas which are many of our own, here, too).

Consider the alternative. Just imagine how things would be now - if it were President romney. Who would a President mccain have appointed to the Supreme Court when the vacancies came up in which we gained Sotomayor and Kagan? THEY wouldn't have had a prayer with him. We'd probably have another alito or thomas or scalia.



Affordable Care Act? Not if there was a President romney! It'd be GONE. Anything the knuckle-dragger majority House of Reps, including doing away with Roe v Wade and all remaining voting rights - would have sailed straight through and would have been signed into law by now, instead of us having a stop-gap in the White House who will veto such abominations if they ever get as far as his desk.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE.



And while so many are dumping on Obama and explaining the many ways rand paul is palatable, just stop and think what kind of regime we'd have if rand paul were President. DEAR GOD SPARE US!!!! President Obama isn't the best. And he isn't the best that we deserve. But he's LIGHTYEARS better than what the other guys have. And the problems AREN'T ALL WITH HIM. Give him a Congress that isn't dead-set against his every attempt even to breathe - and you'd probably find his presidency a lot more satisfying. I know I certainly would.

[LWolf]

9. Nobody wants their hero to have feet of clay.

For some, the image is all, no matter what lies beneath that image.

That's just one of the problems with needing heroes, whether they be sports figures or military or law enforcement or politicians. Even our greatest leaders have had flaws; not a single one was without blemish. And Obama is no MLK or Gandhi.

Beyond hero worship, though, there are other factors. One of which is about power; about "winning" at all cost. For some, the ends justify the means, and issues are always secondary to power and control. Their "team" must be in power, regardless of what they do with that power. It's about competition. It's about winning. It's political capitalism run amok. Like economic capitalism, it's about profiting at all cost. And the profit is all about party, and party personality, power. Not about issues, or the gullible voters.

[Savannahmann]

10. My Party is always right.

A smaller version of My Country is always right. While many of us would object to this as childish, the cheerleaders would argue that no matter how bad our party is we must support it or the other guys, who are worse, would win. This is a juvenile argument obviously, as it utterly ignores the process of evolution.

Evolution does not just happen to the biological aspects of the species, it happens to the societies that those species create. One hundred years ago slavery had been abolished, but mistreatment because of supposed genetic superiority continued. People looked down on any groups that did not associate with the one doing the looking. Irish were considered as drunken brawlers. Hence the name of the Paddy Wagon, which was used to haul the drunken Irishmen to jail. Germans were viewed as boorish, while the English and French were considered Genteel. The English Army officers considered the French to be substandard, because while they were officers, they were not gentlemen from good families.

Today, for the most part, our society has evolved into a better one. Yet, we still use the same small minded bigotry applied in other areas. WASP's were superior, everyone knew it. One of the strikes against Kennedy was that he was Catholic, and even today many people think that Catholics can't dissociate their views from that of a foreign Pope.

So we must be loyal Democrats, and support the party, and our elected officials in full throated shouts of determined obedience. The problem is that it utterly ignores that same Evolution that we pretend to recognize in other areas of life. The Democratic Party has evolved on many issues, and many of those evolutions were IMO mistakes. So instead of debating the issue from the point of view that we can evolve into something better, we have become RW lunatics demanding that such evolutions are a sign of weakness.

It isn't weakness, it is the natural progression of species, and of opinions. Species evolve from the simple to the complex, why shouldn't our political views follow the same evolutionary pattern? Well, we're not going to do that if we are Democratic Party members, because that evolution is a sign of weakness. Instead we are chastised for not offering our full throated support of the party, those folks even claim we want the Republicans to win.

My only question is what will it take for us to evolve as a party, and embrace the truths that so many see as self evident? From where I sit, it looks like the Republicans are going to beat us to that state of mind, and if they do, if they embrace populist idealism before we do on the subjects that matter, we're going to be in the minority for a generation or more.

[arely staircase]

106. which one is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

just wondering

[Savannahmann]

111. If you are accusing me of being Libertarian, then my response would be hidden

By jury decision. If you are asking if I am speaking of that party, my answer is no. We the Democratic Party, need to evolve. We need to evolve and recognize that the same old answers don't work. The claim of National Security is a dodge. We know it, the people know it, and that's why the polling sucks for us.

We talk about winning the house, but all we do is run from things that might not sound good. We support spying on Americans because we are more afraid of being labeled soft on Terror than we are of violating the civil rights of the citizens.

We talk about the problems with crime and our judicial system, but rush out to support the police every chance we get out of fear of being labeled soft on crime.

We oppose the war, but support the 300 or so drone strikes every year, as if it is less repugnant when American's are not in danger while we're killing people. Because we're afraid that if we don't kill anyone we can, they might attack us and we'll look soft on defense of the nation.

We talk about Guns, but we don't get serious about it, we don't do our homework, and we got our asses kicked. So we gave up, we left it on the floor where the RW knocked it out of our hands.

We talk about the economy, but we don't hold big business to the standards that we demand every small business meet.

These are all issues I've posted about, from the liberal point of view that is my home. We need to evolve, and we need to embrace the principles that were our foundation not that long ago. Those principles that brought people into our party. The principles that we once claimed to hold dear in our hearts. Instead we try to out macho the Rethugs to show we are manly enough to bomb the crap out of people who can't possibly defend themselves from us. We won't even discuss the idea of Legalizing Marijuana, because then we'll be painted as dope smoking commies by the RW that isn't going to like us anyway.

That's the point. The RW is never going to vote for us, so why are we playing by their rules? Why are we playing by their rules when even if we win, we out macho the asshats, they aren't going to vote for us.

We should do as much as humanly possible for the American People, always standing up for, and fighting for. Instead we're doing as much as we can for the RW, while trying to wrap the shit sandwich in a wrap of liberal phraseology. While we were being taught Miranda, did your teacher ever mention a balance between civil rights and the need for security? No, because the civil right used to be the most important thing to us.

We evolved, but we evolved into a slightly less obnoxious version of the RW assholes. We aren't really evolving, we're de-evolving. Going from more complex to more simplistic. I'm sorry if that observation bothers you, but it is the truth, and it's past time we quit pretending that we're good, we're winners, and darn it, people like us.

[arely staircase]

113. what do you think about medicare? nt

[Savannahmann]

135. What is this a Litmus test to see if I am really a Liberal?

I'm in favor of single payer, on several threads here I've mentioned that. Do I pass? Or am I still a suspected libertarian because I abhor the erosion of civil rights by politicians of any political party?

Tell you what. Give me a good reason why I shouldn't just ignore you? Because this has been an insulting challenge. Let me highlight some of my other statements before you challenge them. I became aware of a disease that was decimating gay men when a friend of mine's brother died. They called it the Grip back in those days, and I thought that was wrong. It wasn't until after he died that they called it AIDS. I lived in California then, and back then used to go to the midnight showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show in Balboa. Real good foundation of Libertarianism right?

This has been a farce, and while I've disagreed with you before, I used to have a modicum of respect for you. However that modicum of respect has been diminished to the point where it would be uncomfortable to say that I was in the same party as you were. My first election I voted for Dukakis, who did you vote for?

The first election I was ever really aware of was Carter/Reagan in 1980. Dad told me he voted for Carter. Dad even groaned and said we'd lost the election four years later when Reagan did that youth and inexperience line.

But that's fine, you can suspect me of being a libertarian and challenge my beliefs. In the end, my fears are liable to come true, and we'll end up with a Republican Senate and House. But then guys like you won't smell the coffee then either, you'll stay with the asinine policy of hugging the millstone as it drags us down, and then we'll have Rand Paul in the White House. I have been steadily arguing against that, but on that sad day you'll probably blame me for wishing it on us.

I would say more, but then you'd win and my post would be hidden, and you could whine and complain to skinner that I am secretly some troll and get me banned too. Is that the party we've come to? Where not only do we accuse those who disagree with us as trolls and libertarian plants, but we gin up evidence to get them banned?

Now you see why my respect for you would read lower only if there were numbers on the dial that read less than zero.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. I don't get it either

How can people defend every single one of his actions?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. They don't. Do they? Even Michelle questions things he does.

[The Link]

13. I can remember when they redefined homophobia for him.

Until he "evolved" last year.

[1-Old-Man]

14. A blind man sincerely believes its always dark - he is wrong, but sincere none the less

and half the time he's right of course, but not because he has factual evidence it is dark out but because he always believes its dark out.

People who have blind trust in President Obama are much the same. They can not see the light but they are happy to report their own view as the only possible view and think that anyone who doesn't see the purity of the man the way they do is some sort of traitor to the Party that put him in office.

[bhikkhu]

15. "Obama pushes big cut in nuclear weapons"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0619/Obama-pushes-big-cut-in-nuclear-weapons.-Is-that-a-good-idea-video

...as a part of a larger package of defence spending cuts.

"Obama Seeks to Shut Down Military Bases"

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-seeks-closing-military/2013/03/01/id/492652

...sorry for the source, but the headline was most to the point. I'm most pleased that the ridiculously expensive mega-bases in Iraq were abandoned, against all predictions that it would never happen.

"Trillions" is hyperbole, of course, though the Pentagon budget for our overseas presence is about $170 billion per year, and shrinking.

Unlimited detention is a direct result of the AUMF, or congressional authorization for war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, of 2001. Its under the same terms as customary for any other previous war. Under bush the whole thing was entrenched into a never-ending mess. The planned withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan should end the war against the Taliban at long last - a very good thing. As far as the war against Al Qaeda, I don't have any praise for Obama, but I don't know whether anyone else's plan would have gone better.

On the NSA, I keep reading that the shocking abuses are going to be released, but I have yet to see anything especially shocking. The last Greenwald release was a program that the administration shut down two years ago, as review showed it was overstepping its bounds. That's not shocking, that's just good regulatory oversight and follow-through. As the debate goes on, I would hope to see an improvement in regulatory oversight, which I'm sure the president will approve.

On edit, and to ramble on a bit more, everyone has their "big issues", the things that are most important to them. Militarism is certainly one, but I think we have been going the right direction there for some time. Ending the Iraq war, ending the war in Afghanistan, cutting the number of bases, the overall troop levels, drawing down the nuke inventory, and shrinking the pentagon budget. None of that was easy or expected, and we would have gotten none of that from a republican.

The really big issue, however, is income inequality, and that has been what virtually every one of Obama's domestic policies has revolved around. Its also what the repugs have been fighting over tooth and nail since he was elected. Big successes were the banking reform bill, which has made some good changes, but some aspects of which are still being blocked in congress from implementation. The ACA is also a huge deal, and you can measure that by how many times the house has voted to repeal it. Its been called the biggest shift toward wealth equality in the US in decades, and it will make a huge and lasting difference. Raising the capital gains tax and the tax rates for the top 2% were huge as well. And there is more to come along those lines and plenty of battles left; that's where the real fight is. The NSA thing is a sideshow.

A republican house refuses to approve the food stamp program, hoping to end food assistance for 46 million low-income Americans, but forget that, lets all jump ship and skip the next election because of - lists of phone numbers...

[gulliver]

16. That's a non-existent group, of course.

Then this "NSA snooping" rhetoric just keeps getting more and more vague, more and more tendentious and foolish. As yet, there has been no one shown to have been hurt by any "NSA snooping," for example. Why such vehemence, such sky-is-falling panic?

To me, it's just a bunch of vague, computer-illiterate nonsense so far. It stirs up the folks who are motivated to think of themselves as well-intentioned and well-informed, but who really aren't. I'll just wait to see how the grown-ups deal with it, thanks. I'm not seeing any motion on it, just eyeballs and ads.

[burnodo]

18. No

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. I'm sure all of you chiming in realize how arrogant and full of shit you sound

Oh my God, WHY the FUCK didn't I see it until now? Obama is a human who doesn't do everything right!!! Thank you for that epiphany, geniuses! God, I wish I could tread in your Birkenstocks so I could know such greatness even for but a moment.

What you fail to consider is there is a contingent here who is being hyper critical and unfair toward Obama considering what he's done and had to face in getting ANYTHING done. Therefore, a strong counter balance of folks who try to defend Obama are seen as "defending Obama's every move because they present contrary data and opinions to your "Obama is bad and such a disappointment" echo chamber.

Once again, the world is not as black and white as you choose to paint it.

[BumRushDaShow]

35. Automated result for the alert on this post...

At Sun Aug 18, 2013, 12:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'm sure all of you chiming in realize how arrogant and full of shit you sound
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3482381

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

From the first sentence to the last this posting is intent on being insulting. It is rude and disruptive at best.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 18, 2013, 12:55 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: First sentence sets the tone for the rest of the post...rude all around.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Although there is an "insulting" tone to the post, the over-riding sentiment seems to be the poster's frustration with being a supporter of Obama on DU. The "you"s are collective; therefore, there are no "personal attacks"
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree in a general way with the poster's sentiments. But, to go after others in a sort of personal way: 'geniuses,' and 'tread in your Birkenstocks' seems a bit offensive, over-the-top; the sort of things you might not say if you were speaking to others in person.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

65. Thanks for posting that. Whew! Dodged a bullet

[Logical]

80. LOL, 7 posts hidden in the last 90 days. You have some issues. n-t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

83. Thanks for the diagnosis, doc! Do you clean carpets too?

Go read what got hidden. Some were callouts of disruptors. I'd rather speak my mind than worrying about posts hidden

[Logical]

85. Alert the disruptors. If you are correct, which I doubt, they will get locked. n-t

[treestar]

60. +1 I wonder if THEY are sincere

If they are, I feel sorry for them. Such bitterness and negativity. They present nothing constructive. At least the President is trying to do something. All they can do is find fault. I dislike people in real life who are relentlessly negative. I hate the word "disappointment." I am sick of people who expect their outlandish expectations to be met by others, who think only of themselves and what THEY want and expect the rest of the world to be similarly focused on them and their demands, expectations and desires, too.

[Logical]

66. LOL, you are entertaining. Not sure you are serious though. n-t

[NorthCarolina]

95. "tread in your Birkenstocks"?? Interesting choice of words.

You sure you're on the correct site?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

102. Yes. I cannot believe a sign of purity for Democrats would be love of Birkenstocks.

I managed to be a progressive and Democrat all these years while hating Birkenstocks!

[NorthCarolina]

103. OK, now I understand from where your comment originates.

Again I have to ask, are you sure you're on the right site? Democrats are generally more tolerant and even supportive...or at I always thought they were.

[rug]

20. “My dear boy, the people who love only once in their lives are really the shallow people.

What they call their loyalty, and their fidelity, I call either the lethargy of custom or their lack of imagination.. Faithfulness is to the emotional life what consistency is to the life of the intellect---simply a confession of failures."

- The Picture of Dorian Grey

[woo me with science]

24. Surveillance states are *always* accompanied by propaganda states.

The construction of one is always accompanied by the construction of the other.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

Any state that destroys free journalism has to have a propaganda machine up and ready to take its place.

[Skip Intro]

92. +1. And propaganda and misdirection and disinformation works.

Very good point.

We don't talk about the "phony" DOJ/AP scandal, or the government going after reporters who write things the government doesn't like, but the real effect of that is that, according to the AP, sources have clammed up. Naturally, many journalists would think twice now about criticizing the president or the admin or "government." Just as, I'm sure, many individuals do now that we know the government is monitoring every word.

Meanwhile, we're fed a daily dose of bs from tptb, and enough of us to enable whatever comes next willingly lap it up and beg for more.

[last1standing]

27. Some are sadly sincere.

They are what Colbert referred to as the 'backwash' during the bush years. They've tied up so much of their own identity with the president that they now can't separate themselves from his worst abuses. Instead they have to justify them, and when justification doesn't work they have to lash out at those who point the abuses out.

As for the rest, I think others have sufficiently explained their presence.

[tularetom]

28. Yes and those of us who question NSA surveillance are all racist trolls

Don't you know this whole thing is just like Benghazi or IRS-gate, just something dreamed up to embarrass our awesome president who would never embrace a neocon foreign policy?

Or have you, like me, been duped by Ron Paul into believing that when Obama does it, it's no different from when Buish did it?

[Andy823]

29. Who defends his every single move?

Maybe you could link to some posters comments where they say they support his "every single move", because I myself have never seen on of those posts. Just because someone does not agree with your view about the president, does not mean they blindly follow him no matter what he does.

Should I accuse everyone who supports Greenwald and Snowden say as "defenders of their every single move?" Of course not, so why make such claims of those of us who actually support the president?

[BumRushDaShow]

52. You're not going to get an answer

because they will deflect and start rambling on about "blue links" causing them to have seizures while dismissing and ignoring the very concept of "constructive criticism" (that comes from supporters of the President), because cheap and easy ad hominems require little thought.

[Andy823]

96. I know

But it was worth a try to actually get a reply instead of being ignored, or as you said try and deflect the question.

[nxylas]

108. How is it deflection ...

...to mention a prolific poster whose posts unfailingly reflect the White House line on any given topic? Seems entirely pertinent to me.

[elias7]

31. Are those that pigeonhole those with positions they disagree with sincere?

I think you have mischaracterized those who have not cast Obama into the pit. Those insincere people do not appear to me to be supporting Obama's every move, but are rather accused of doing so when they don't automatically condemn something you think should be condemned.

The problem is as much with you for simplifying a complicated dynamic.

[FreakinDJ]

36. ^^^ This guy gets it ^^^^

We all do - except Romney wasn't much of an alternate

[Cali_Democrat]

37. That person just said he almost voted for Gary Johnson.

You know, the libertarian candidate?

He gets it?

[FreakinDJ]

41. Would be great if we had a 3 party system

but we don't

All Ross Perot did was help elect Clinton
All Nader did was elect Bush

[hrmjustin]

51. This site advocates for democrats not third parties.

[FreakinDJ]

56. Gee - I wondered what the name meant

Since when did Democrats help Banksters Raid the Working Class

[hrmjustin]

119. Listen I was just saying what the terms of service say.

The poster that signed up violated those terms and Mirt removed.

[SwampG8r]

117. bullshit..... go tell that to kendrick meek

if the "right republican" comes along then its AOK to push him here on DU
just ask Kendrick meek what du allowed in his election here in florida
he was forgotten as the republican crist was endorsed and pushed on us because he had "a better chance of winning than meek"
so go sell that bar of soft soap somewhere else

[hrmjustin]

118. It is in the terms of service.

I am not responsible for jury decisions and i do not make the rules.

[SwampG8r]

120. terms of service meant nothing to the ones pushing the republican here

Kendrick meek who won the actual dem primary in florida was left unsupported while crist the republican was given full support here
the terms of service are as elastic as an Obama election promise sometimes
the lack of support to meek and the watershed of support for the republican crist happened here whether you choose to believe it or not
I even was told in ata that it was "ok" since crist (the republican) was "more likely to win"
again go peddle your soft soap somewhere else

[hrmjustin]

121. I was not here during that election. And why are you being so hostile?

[SwampG8r]

123. sorry if i come off hostile

but I have rick scott for a governor now when I could have had meek
it bugs me when people here hide behind the tos when I know for an absolute fact that same tos is very bendable
it bugs me when many of the same dlc du posters now cry out "tos tos" when during that election they reveled in being able to ignore it
I have yet to be able to give any credibility back to those involved



again sorry to come off as hostile and I assure you my anger is with the circumstance and not with you

[hrmjustin]

124. Ok. I understand. Do you know who the democrats will put up the next time?

[SwampG8r]

125. disgustingly the only "dem" i have heard is crist himself

after failing as a 3rd party candidate he decided he was really a democrat
so now thanks in part to the credibility DU lent him he is now going to run as a "democrat" and I am sure govern as a republican
see where the hostility comes from?

[hrmjustin]

126. Yes I do see why you are pissed.

[SwampG8r]

127. not at you though

I just feel my blood pressure go way up when I read the "tos" being mentioned while a big ass ad of rick scott is on the top of this very page mocking all of DU

[hrmjustin]

129. No worries my friend. If I had him for a governor I would be very upset as well.

[arely staircase]

107. some of them aren't as good at it as others

[BumRushDaShow]

43. So you agree with

I almost voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee

That's what I thought! Here is your hero!

[FreakinDJ]

53. No - I just Don't Agree with Obama-Puppets

and no I don't think standing ideally by while your President is rewarding Wall St. Banksters with $85 Billion per month while the Working Class is being Raided of their homes and life savings is Democratic / Progressive / what ever the fuck you may wish to ReBrand it as

[arely staircase]

105. what guy?

[geek tragedy]

132. "Message auto removed" does have a certain pithy

quality to it . . .

[ProSense]

38. Welcome to DU, and

enjoy your stay.

I'm proud that I voted for Obama.

Obama's second term: A productive six months.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023482199

[arely staircase]

109. john galt just got his pizza

[BumRushDaShow]

39. "I almost voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee"

And that my friends, is the problem on DU. The shill Libertarian crowd who is attempting to overthrow the government.

[Rex]

46. Oh that is PERFECT!

Did you make up your profile before or after reading a little bit of GD?

[arely staircase]

73. oh, well. you should have gone ahead and voted for one of those 3rd party nuts. Obama won BIG!

[blogslut]

40. Are people who claim there are DUers that defend Obama's EVERY SINGLE MOVE being disingenous?

[FreakinDJ]

45. Pretty Much

"Yes I support Obama offering up Cuts to Social Security and Medicaid"

[blogslut]

48. That is a quote from whom?

[burnodo]

61. Not at all

There are some posters who've never criticized any action or move of Obama's. And many posters who brand any criticism as latent racism.

[blogslut]

62. I realize you can't name those posters because of DU policy

How convenient for you.

[burnodo]

68. More convenient for you

To see so selectively that you apparently miss those posters who the OP refers to

[blogslut]

74. The OP is suffering from a case of hyperbole

As for me, I see just fine.

[burnodo]

78. Once again...

apparently there are things you just don't see

[blogslut]

81. Okay

You have fun with that.

[burnodo]

86. You win

[uponit7771]

42. ***HOW!?!?!?*** When the tellings of such going ons is filled with overt lies and sophistry to

...the point were you KNOW peoples knowledge or lack of is being taken advantage of for the sake of stoking fear.

HOW!?

When I see FAUX news hearts Snowden?!

How?!

When I see the one pushing the story pushing a book before everything's "revealed"

This is bullshit, don't ask people "how" any longer...

Enough is there, for those who WANT to see, to doubt the who agency = bad Paulinan meme

[Rex]

44. Not at all.

I think some of them are insincere and not part of the Democratic party. They know how to use the issue to disrupt and that is exactly what they do.

[treestar]

47. How can everyone not agree with you about everything?

And within the limits of your knowledge and experience?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

50. I believe many are.

There are a lot of people who are deeply invested in Obama or the Party being a success, including believing that what he is doing is correct. First and foremost I want the country to be successful, and because of that I find myself often disagreeing with those folks.

[DonCoquixote]

58. not every single move

But there are some of us who see that many who are using the latest scandlas are those who have an agenda that is not even remotely what we want (like the Pauls.)

[liberal N proud]

63. I support President Obama...

He is not a republican. Although he has not given everyone the pony they thought they were promised, he has moved the country forward. It is terrifying to think where this country would be if gramps McCain and word salad Palin or the stiff Rmoney had been at the helm.

I don't always agree with the President, but it is a far cry from what we had before and I am a realist, we are all not going to get what we want all the time.

I don't see the value in constantly attacking Obama and those who support him unless I had an alternative motive of disenfranchisement of Democratic voters.

I get sick of hearing constant badgering of Obama as does the right wing, their talking heads and a number of people on this board.

I support Democratic candidates.

[Andy823]

99. Good post.

For some here it seems like it's not just "a" pony, but the entire heard of ponies they want. Nothing seems to please them, it's all doom and gloom and if you don't buy into the "doom and gloom", if you actually can see the great things the president has done since talking office, and you "actually" support the president on most things, well then to them you are not really a "liberal" because the only "true liberals" all believe what they believe, whatever that may be!

Maybe they are on the wrong discussion forum. After all this is DU which means DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. They may be lost and are looking for the LU, libertarian underground, the PU, Paul underground or even the GU, Greenwald underground.

What really amaze me is the crap those who support a democratic president, on a democratic discussion board seem to get every day. It really makes no sense to me why being behind your president is so terrible!

[Logical]

64. Only one poster I know of is a ridiculous cheerleader for Obama. So much so that....

you have to question their motive. It is beyond silly.

[arely staircase]

67. Lots of Obama haters, though. nt

[Logical]

70. I assume meaning people who are disappointed in him, thinks he could have done more? n-t

[arely staircase]

75. 3.5 more years

get used to it.

[Logical]

77. He is 1000 times better than Romney. But overall a disappointment. n-t

[arely staircase]

79. to some. nt

[Logical]

82. To anyone paying attention. n-t

[arely staircase]

84. uh huh

[JoeyT]

100. A fine attitude.

And probably the same one that cost us in 2010.

Apparently we're going to take the "Tell all the liberals to fuck off, then cry for four years when we don't get what we want" route again for 2014 because it worked so well for us last time.

If we actually elected a Democratic majority, there wouldn't be any more defense of the president's right wing policy.

[arely staircase]

104. haters gonna hate

[JoeyT]

112. Thank you for so aptly demonstrating the point I made downthread.

With a charismatic authority, the authority figure cannot be criticized. His followers believe him too great a person to be subjected to such.

Personality cult. Awwww yeah baby.

[arely staircase]

114. yes. bad obama supporters

bad, those Democrats who support the president. shame on them.

[burnodo]

69. Only one?

Are you freaking kidding????

[chowder66]

91. "Cheerleader"

Fox doesn't talk about the good things the administration has done. And many more MSM outlets sure could use some of DU's "Cheerleaders and Critics" or representations of them, instead all republican/all negative all the time.

I imagine if the arguments were a little more contextual here then you might see less posts "reminding" those who visit DU of the good things that our party and this administration has done.

Complain, rail against, criticize all you want but do it with a bit more fairly expressed context and provide some sort of balance.
Both sides can do this to balance out the arguments even if it is just a little bit.

Example: This administration has been hamstrung and there are many good policies, issues that have been achieved however
there is much more to do like (insert your concern, any solution you foresee, etc).

I'm perfectly fine with hearing the other side here. I'm glad there are those that show an alternative viewpoint and remind us of what has been accomplished and what more needs to be done or re-prioritized.

[kelliekat44]

72. I am very sincere AND I don't support the President's EVERY move and don't expect others to do so.

[Jamastiene]

87. Some are like Beliebers.

Some are more reasonable. They can understand some reasonable complaints about President Obama's actions and will argue based on the topic at hand. That isn't so bad. It indicates a healthy state of mind. I can understand that and like to discuss topics with the ones who can be reasonable and level headed about it.

Others are like "Beliebers." They cannot stand even the mildest criticism of President Obama and will hound you relentlessly if you dare utter a difference of opinion. I think they really mean it, in a "Belieber" kind of way. Being THAT obsessed cannot possibly be a healthy state of mind. That kind of zealousness makes me think of those glassy eyed, brainwashed cult followers. It's sad and creepy.

There are the ones who hate on him relentlessly and the ones who are overzealous to defend him from even the slightest criticism. I tend to criticize when President Obama does something I disagree with and remember to mention when he does something I like too. Neither side seems to like that. I tend to take shit from every direction for it when I do pipe in and say something. I don't understand why others can see the good and the bad.

I strongly disagree with the NSA spying too, but I realize President Obama is not the first president, nor will he be the last, to authorize more of the spying. I think the reason I am not surprised by that is that I did not vote for him in the primaries in 2008. He was literally my last choice from the list of Democrats running at the time. I started out really wanting Kucinich, then went to Edwards after he was frozen out, then ended up with the choice between Obama and Clinton by the time our state voted. Yes, I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries in 2008. When you think about the order I chose, you realize I would much have preferred Kucinich...but we all know how he was shouted down and called everything from a Keebler elf to a total idiot.

I have finally come to the conclusion that whichever corporate endorsed candidate we end up with it going to do things like the NSA spying and Patriot Act crap. There are no heroes in a position of power anymore, because the powers that be, the ones that decide who has access to that position, want it that way. Even if we did end up with a candidate that left of the new center progressives really love, some right wing asshole(s) or CIA splinter cell would take them out anyhow. So, we are fucked no matter what.

[MyNameGoesHere]

94. Defending the president isn't a big deal from me.

The bigger question for me is , when did Democrats start trusting their leaders? Insanity.

[stevenleser]

88. Name a DUer who does that please. nt

[Cryptoad]

97. I have no probglem with your goals

its your path to achieve them I have problem with..!

a path that insures that the GOP will be back in the White House

And if you really think that more GOP appointed Federal Judges is going to do what you want, you have some major problems.

[naturallyselected]

98. I have stayed out of these discussions

Afraid of having "newbie" status thrown at me (I'm not - been here for years, just don't post often), or being accused of being an Obama apologist, because if a line in the sand has to be drawn, with the supporters on one side and the critics on the other, I'm on the supporter side.

But I, and no one I know, defends his every move.

1) I was opposed to the Patriot Act when it was introduced, and the NSA revelations don't surprise me at all. And Obama's defense of the NSA doesn't surprise me either. To me, here's the situation. Because of the out-of-proportion fear of terrorists in this country, I can't imagine any President taking any chances that a major terrorist attack will take place on his/her watch. I think it's crazy, I hate the whole idea of a surveillance state, but it's what we've got.

2) I support single-payer health care. Again, it's not going to happen soon (I think that, inevitably, it will eventually). While folks here decry this Obama gift to the health insurance industry, more than half the country think the incremental steps of Obamacare are the start of a communist society. I don't like the way he negotiated, but at the same time, in the current political climate, I think this is the best we could have gotten.

3) I despise the drone policy; it's the biggest terrorist recruitment policy of all - but see number 1.

4) I wanted to see those responsible for the economic collapse punished. It hasn't happened, I wasn't surprised. Half this country voted for Romney. Half this country, in some weird alternate reality, honestly believes that the only way to fix the economy is to give these criminals even more freedom. The very minimal reforms Obama has helped put into effect are way too little, but, to half the country, they are the moves of an anti-capitalist who wants to redistribute the wealth from the earners to the takers. I don't get it - but this is how way too many feel.

The political center has moved so far to the right that it is going to take a very long time to move it back. I am not surprised that Obama has done so little to move it back; I think he has done about as much as anyone could. What I am disappointed by is that this caution seems to be a characteristic of Obama. It's not like he wants more progressive policies and isn't able to get them - this is his nature. But, with the current climate, and the current Congress, would a more progressive president been able to do more? This is where I probably respectfully disagree with many here. I think this is about as good as we could have gotten. A small step in the right (left) direction, but about what is possible right now.

Whenever I read posts here, and find myself thinking - yeah. what a disappointment Obama has been - I take a little trip outside the bubble and read the comments in response to mainstream newspaper articles about the issues in question. And I realize what reality is. The same President that we see as far too cautious, or as a Democrat in name only, as the NSA defending Wall Street sympathizer - half the country sees him as the most liberal President in history, as a leftist radical, some see him, literally, as the Anti-Christ.

The country is not going to accept the Obama we would like to see, even if he had it in him. It's going to be a very slow swing back to a center that almost anyone at DU could accept as reasonable. Obama frustrates me, disappoints me, but here in the polarized climate of DU, I would be called an Obama apologist, or, supporting everything he does, as far from the truth as that is.

[gtar100]

101. It depends entirely on the level of identification one has with him.

Or at least on the idea of what they think Obama stands for. It seems we oversimplify the issues when we are reduced to an either/or question. Either you are an Obama supporter or you aren't. Just answer the question yes or no, do you support President Obama? Because if you are for this, you are for that; and if you are against that, you are against this. It makes for sizing up people nice and easy.

I think a lot of people who support the president unequivocally are really doing so because they are deathly afraid that if they don't, the republicans will win majorities again and fuck this country up even more than they have so far. But at least here on DU, I'm sure we all share that concern regardless if you support President Obama or not... yes or no, just answer the question.

[JoeyT]

110. I think most are sincere in their defense,

but not sincere in their defenses.

They're well aware that people that oppose war, support single payer, dislike NSA/TSA, etc aren't Ron/Rand Paul fans. They know all the people criticizing him aren't super secret double racists. They know boxes in garages and not petting the neighbor's dog are irrelevant, but when you're stuck defending an indefensible position, you resort to sleight of hand: Don't look here, look over there! Watch me pull a pole dancing girlfriend out of a hat! Wonder as I make a Ron Paul appear from thin air! Marvel as I saw a post on a forum from eight years ago in half! They're obvious derailing tactics, but they work.

The claims that they're trying to prevent criticism to keep Republicans out of office ring hollow when you take a look at the threads that are posted where no criticism can be made. Generally they're very light on policy discussion or actual politics of any kind. They tend to be more along the lines of "Look at him in his swim trunks!" Look at him in a tuxedo! Isn't he dreamy!?" or even worse, constant threads about how wonderful He is just for being Him.

It's often referred to as a cult of personality, but the more accurate term is probably charismatic authority. The next time we have a Republican president, and possibly even a different Democratic one, for the most part they'll oppose endless war, drone killings, Wall Street cronyism, etc again.

Edited to add: I forgot "hater". Once I tried to convince my little cousin Justin Bieber's music sucked. It was disturbingly similar to arguing politics or election strategy with some people. Bieber Fever for grownups.

[bigtree]

115. strawman

. . . don't pretend you've read every post of theirs.

Even more unlikely when you have most of them on ignore.

[morningfog]

116. Some are, no doubt. Some refuse to believe he could ever do

wrong, either by accident or intentionally. They see Obama not as a political figure,but some kind of idol or hero. Their world view can not accept he could do wrong.

Then, there are others who are obvious shills. They prey on the ignorant believers to grab and spread the message. On DU, there is only one I am all but certain is a paid shill. There are only one or two others I strongly suspect. But, for the majority of the Obama can do no wrong crowd, they are just strong believers.

There are also a few who are willing to ignore uncomfortable facts because they believe a positive spin will be better for the Democratic Party. I can't fault them for that. I disagree with the approach. I think it does more harm in the long run, but can understand where they are coming from.

Of course, there is overlap in the above.

[MjolnirTime]

122. You never got Obama, did you?

[Yo_Mama]

128. I think they are very sincere.

I think it's very heartfelt.

[BeyondGeography]

133. Who designated today as Lamest OP's Ever Day anyway?

[Egalitarian Thug]

136. Apparently, it was you.

[HooptieWagon]

134. Some are paid shills, most likely.

Others merely struggle with cognitive dissonance when faced with the fact their hero isn't. There are still "defenders" of Aaron Hernandez, after all.

[Egalitarian Thug]

137. I think at least some, probably most of them are.

There are a lot of people with a lot of serious problems out here. There are a lot of people with no opportunity or capacity to live lives beyond sitting on this board all day every day. A lot of people become very heavily invested in personalities and build great fantasies around them.